Chief Director B of the Representative

2. C. Credit Cooperatives;

Representative President Kim D

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Gyeong-min

A. On November 4, 2010, the Plaintiffs created a right to collateral security with a maximum debt amount of KRW 689 million on each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet, which are owned by F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”), and provided loans to F Co., Ltd. 500 million.

B. On December 4, 2010, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement to lease the instant real estate by setting the deposit amount of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1 million, and the period from December 4, 2010 to December 4, 2012, the Defendant agreed to the effect that “When the contract is terminated, the lessee shall remove and restore the facilities installed in the relevant contract, restore the site to its original state, and be unable to assert any claim for the premium for any facilities” as a special agreement. In addition, the Defendant’s voluntary auction procedure began on March 6, 2012 upon the application of the Plaintiffs by the Changwon District Court Branch Branch on the instant real estate on March 6, 2012.

D. On May 10, 2012, when the above auction procedure was in progress, the Defendant asserted that there was a claim of KRW 260 million with respect to the instant real estate, and filed a report on the right as a lien holder with the above court. [The grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, each entry in the evidence A1 or 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant did not have the right of retention as to the real estate of this case, and even if the defendant asserts that the right of retention should be claimed as the secured obligation for the right of recourse, such as the test cost, etc. regarding the real estate of this case, since the defendant waived it as the special terms and conditions at the time of the conclusion of the lease contract, the right of retention

As to this, the defendant, around November 2008, concluded a lease agreement with Ansan where the owner of the instant real estate had been the owner of the instant real estate, agreed to recognize the premium for all construction works and facilities, such as interior language and toilet facilities, fire-fighting works, urban gas works, heating works, and ceiling construction works, and paid KRW 360 million for each construction cost. This asserted to the effect that the defendant has a lien on the instant real estate because it constitutes necessary expenses and beneficial expenses.

B. Determination

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant paid the necessary and beneficial expenses of the instant real estate, and even if there was an agreement that the Defendant would have paid the said expenses or would be compensated for the said expenses with Ansan, it is acknowledged that the Defendant agreed to restore the instant real estate to its original state at the time of termination of the contract under a special agreement, which would constitute an agreement to waive the right to demand reimbursement, such as the necessary and beneficial expenses, etc. Accordingly, there is no lien on the instant real estate. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs, who are the creditors requesting the auction of the instant real estate, who are the creditors requesting the auction of the instant real estate, are able to seek confirmation of non-existence of the right to demand a lien in the auction procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da32848, Sept. 23, 2004).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are with merit, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting them.